and ye are easily mistaken one for another But the Rector seems to have no concern for any Truth but what respects the Bishops power Avoid all Corruption that may prejudice that and this tender hoofed Creature it is his own Expression p. 24. can easily digest all the rest It was none of my business to Examin how often these Errors have been repeated tho' I told him Remark p. 13. an Error in one Impression is easily repeated because the Frames of the Bible are often kept intire and not broken by half Sheets as in printing other Books and so the same set of Frames serves for a second and third Impression and so forward until the Letters decay and grow useless But this He takes no Notice of IV. An Error of the Press deserves not to be taken to task when no ill Use is made of it I know no Body that has made any ill Use of ye in Acts 6. 3. Nor has he yet been able to produce any one Writer among the Dissenters that has made Use of it against the Bishops His Cameronian Story we shall Examin anon Does he know what ill Use may be made by ignorant People of other Errors of the Press I took notice in my Remarks of his loose and careless way of citing Scriptures and gave Ten Instances of it in that very Sermon in which he Charges the Dissenters with a literal Error of the Press which he can't prove upon them One might have expected more Exactness from so Critical a Censor To this he Answers Jesus Christ and St. Paul did not tie themselves to the very Words of the Scripture in their Quotations p. 34 35. nor does Mr. Baxter Jesus Christ and St. Paul were infallibly acted by the Holy Ghost in their Quotations and had Reasons for their Variation The Rector is not only destitute of a Spirit of Infallibility but of such Reasons as may Justify his chopping and changing Texts of Scripture at his Pleasure He does not pretend to give any Reason why he should mis-quote so many Scriptures within the compass of one short Sermon nor is the thing Capable of any other but this that the Rector is a very careless Transcriber of the Scripture I believe he cannot produce in Mr. Baxter or scarse in any other Author so many Texts of Scripture mis-quoted in one Sermon as there are in his Much less can he give an Instance of so Supine a Negligence in Mr. Baxter as to mis-render the Text of his Sermon This the Rector has done substituting the singular Word add thou not unto his Word for the plural Words add thou not unto his Words I acquitted him from Corrupting the Sense in this Variation but gave this necessary Caution allow Men a liberty of a literal Variation from the Language of the Holy Ghost the Sense and meaning can't be long secured This he calls a putid and ridiculous Remark The Rector 's ye and we in Acts 6. confirms my Remark the Variation is in one Letter but the Sense and Meaning is destroy'd by it Suppose a bold Transcriber should write Gods for God this is a literal Variation but such as destroys the Vnity of the God-head CHAP. IV. Being an Answer to his Fourth Chapter IN this Chapter the Rector endavours to confirm his Arguments to prove the Dissenters guilty of corrupting Acts 6. 3. His Arguments are four 1st The Alteration happen'd in 1638. when Presbytery was in the Ascendant 2ly It favours the Dissenters 3ly The Episcopal Party design'd not to Corrupt this Place 4ly A Cameronian urged this Corrupt reading To his first Argument that the Corruption happen'd in 38. when Presbytery was in the Ascendant I answered Three Things First That two Events may happen at the same time that have no relation to one another Right saith he when there is nothing else to be alledged for confirming the Suspicion but the Turbulency of the Times the Sway of the Populacy and the Corruption of this Place All looked the same way viz. The Extripation of Episcopacy p. 36. The Times were not Turbulent at Cambridge where he saith the first Corruption happen'd nor was there any Sway of Populacy there in the Year 38. Buck and Daniel the University Printers at that time were both Episcopal Men as I observ'd in my Remarks but this he takes no Notice of is it likely that the Cambridge Episcopal Printers should conspire with the Scotch Covenanters to root out Episcopacy in that Year I never understood before that an Error of the Press had an influence for the Extirpation of Episcopacy The Rector has not produc'd any one Instance of any English or Scotch Presbyterians who made Use of that Error to the prejudice of Episcopacy at that Time His Cameronian Story is a later Thing and cannot affect those Times 2. I observ'd that the Rector had answer'd his own Argument by acknowledging the first Corruption an unwilling One an accidental Slip an unfortunate Over-sight a meer Error of the Press and an unhappy Mistake In answer to this he cries My Remarks are all of a Third Lies and Stories that by the unwilling Error he meant the Presbyterian Government p. 36. Be it so all that can be infer'd from it is that I mistook his Meaning which a Man may easily do in a Writer whose Notions are confused and incoherent and way of Expression muddy and perplex'd But he cannot deny that he has call'd it an accidental Slip an unfortunate Over-sight a meer Error of the Press and an unhappy Mistake which is sufficient to overthrow his Argument True saith he yet unto the two first I added I am willing to believe c. The Remarks were just now with him all of a Third Lies and Stories and yet in the same Breath he cannot but acknowledge my Quotations to be True If they are all Lies and Stories there is no Truth in them but some Things are True by his own Confession therefore he is inexcusable for wherein he Judgeth another he Condemns himself As Diogenes trampled upon Plato's Pride with a greater Pride so the Rector exhibits a lying Accusation against my Remarks that they are all Lies and Stories But he qualified some of his other Concessions by saying he was willing to believe that the first Corruption was an unfortunate Over-sight and a meer Error of Press If he is willing to believe this himself what a disingenuous Thing is it in him to endeavour to persuade others to the Contrary The design of his Argument is to make People believe the first Corruption in 38. was a designed Thing to root out Episcopacy Is this the Part of an honest Man Mr. Rector to persuade the World to believe what 's contrary to your own Belief I hope all your Sermons are not of a Piece with this you must not blame us for believing as you do that the Error you Charge us with was an unfortunate Over-sight and a meer Error of the Press and then your Argument is out of Doors
saith he the excellency of it's moral Precepts the high Strains and noble Flights of Piety prove not that it was written by inspiration for then Plato Seneca Ignatius Clement Romanus the VII wise Men of Greece c. might lay claim to inspiration Would you think it that a Protestant Divine should talk thus ignorantly of the blessed Scriptures Are the Precepts in Plato and Seneca as Excellent as those of the Holy Bible Can he find such high Strains and noble Flights of Piety in Pagan Authors as in the inspired Writings A Man that has felt the Power of God's Word renewing quickning comforting and strengthening his Heart will acknowledge the vast Difference between inspired and humane Writings and resolve his Faith into the Authority of God who speaks powerfully and feelingly unto our Consciences by his Spirit in the Scriptures which have Signatures of their Divine Original upon them that no Book besides can lay claim to Tradition is of Use to beget in us a good Opinion of the Scripture but he that makes it a Rule of Faith especially the first and leading Rule as the Rector seems to do resolves his Faith into a humane Authority which can beget but a Humane Faith Divine Faith is founded upon a Divine Testimony and a Humane Testimony can produce but a Humane Faith * Vinc. Lerin adv haeres Lerinensis his Rule about Tradition is quod omnes ubique semper All the Faithful have not at all times and in every Place transmitted every Book of Scripture as of Divine Authority The Popish Church pretend Tradition for the Apocrypha which they receive as Canonical Few of the People are able to judge of the Rule whether it be True or False Ministers may tell 'em of it suppose they receive their Dictates which few are able to Examin they believe with an Implicite Faith because their Ministers say so and thus the Subordinate Rule becomes the first and leading Rule Creeds Canons Dictates of wise and good Men and the like are either agreeable to the Scripture or they are not If they be not they are far from being Rules of Divine Faith for they are Rules of Error and Falshood If they are agreeable to the Scripture we believe and receive them because they are Consonant to the Word of God the only Rule of saving Divine Faith We will allow 'em to be helps unto our Faith but judge it very improper to call 'em Rules of Faith I told the Rector That the laying aside the Un-scriptural Terms of Communion which have been the fatal Engines of Disunion and Schism wou'd soon heal us To this he Answers 1 The Experiment has been once made in the late Times but without Success Divisions were increased c. Things were in a fair way of healing when the Concessions of King Charles I. were voted satisfactory by the Parliament had not a Faction in the Army put all out of Course and governed the Nation by a very Arbitrary Power and yet there were very hopeful beginnings of a Coalition between the moderate Episcopal Presbyterian and Congregational Brethren upon the Principle I mention between the years 1652 and 1659 as appears by the Worcester-shire Association as also by those of Cumberland Westmorland Essex c. which are to be seen in Print If this Principle did not heal us in those distracting and unsettled Times it does not follow that it would not do it now in a State of Settlement and such a Settlement wherein the Bishops are in Power under whom the moderate Dissenters wou'd not scruple to Exercise their Ministry if the offensive Terms were removed out of the way And if ever our unhappy Breaches be healed it must be upon this Principle which has been asserted by the Great Men of the Episcopal Communion †Iren. Pref. Dr. Stillingfleet the present Biship of Worcester declares against Vn-scriptural Impositions He that came to take away the Un-scriptural Yoke of Jewish Ceremonies certainly did never intend to Gall the Back of his Disciples with another instead of it And it would be strange the Church should require more than Christ himself did What possible Reason can be assign'd why such Things shou'd not be sufficient for Communion with a Church which are sufficient for Eternal Salvation Without all Controversy the main In-let of all the Distractions Confusions and Divisions in the Christian World hath been by adding of other Conditions of Church Communion than Christ hath made My Lord Bacon saith that the ancient and true Bounds of Unity are one Faith one Baptism and not one Ceremony one Policy * Resusc par 1. p. 129. The same was the Judgment of King James the I. In non necessariis libertati Christianae locus detur †Is Casaub ep ad Card Peron See Mr. Tallents's healing Book of large Foundations wherein you may find more Testimonies to this purpose 2. The Rector perscribes the method of healing us and that is to obey them that have the Rule over us in all lawful things i. e. which are not forbidden by God The meaning is if I understand him that Church Rulers have Power to impose Things lawful i. e. not forbidden as Terms of Communion and that it is our Duty to obey such impositions This Explication permised I answer 1. He ought to prove that Christ hath Commission'd our Church Rulers to fix un-scriptural Terms of Christian Communion before he prove it our Duty to obey ' em Where they have no power to command I see not our obligation to obey The grand Commission saith Dr. Stillingfleet the Apostles were sent out with was only to teach what Christ had Commanded them Not the least intimation of any Power given to impose or require any thing beyond what himself had spoken to them or they were directed to by the immediate Guidance of the Spirit of God * Iren ubi supra It is not whether the things required be lawful or not but whether they do consult for the Churches Peace and Unity who suspend it uopn such Things How far the Example of our Saviour or his Apostles doth warrant such rigorous Impositions We never read the Apostles making Laws but of Things supposed necessary 2. He ought to shew that all Things not forbidden may lawfully be imposed as Terms of Communion The use of Oyl Spittle Salt Cream c. are not forbidden in Baptism therefore the Rector wou'd submit to the Use of them if his Rulers think fit to enjoyn them as is done in Popery Holy Water is not forbidden nor are any of the Ceremonies used in Popery expresly Prohibited in Scripture therefore they are lawful to the Rector You see whither this Hypothesis tends Sitting at the Lords Supper is not forbidden no more is Prostration the humblest Gesture of Adoration the Rector would scarce like it if either of these were rigidly imposed 3. Who must judge what is Lawful what not If those that obey we are but where we were that
many Verses of that Psalm particularly the 9th and 10th were thought to allude to the Condition of the Israelites in the Wilderness whose Stubbornness God punished by cutting their Lives short i. e. reducing 'em to Seventy or Eighty Years True it alludes to the Condition of the People in the Wilderness but who wou'd have thought so if the Title had not directed Interpreters to apply it to the State of Israel in the Wilderness The Title occasion'd this Application and it was not the Application which occasion'd the Title as he without Reason imagines Here as in many other Psalms the Title is a Key that opens the design and meaning of the Holy Ghost in the body of the Psalm as we find well observ'd by the late Learned Arch-Bishop Sancroft in a Sermon upon a publick Occasion on Psalm 57. 1. But saith our Author if the Titles refer to Passages of History not mention'd in the body of the Psalm this is a good Argument that they are not Canonical but the Conjectures of meer Men which is the Reason I suppose why many Psalms have no Titles at all and many have none to any Purpose at all p. 11. 1st Tho' the historical Passages be not mention'd in the body of the Psalm it is sufficient they are mention'd in the Title and that there is nothing in the Psalm that is inconsistent with it nay the whole sweetly agrees therewith and is better understood by the help of the Title that leads us to the Scope and Occasion of it which otherwise wou'd be more obscure and not so intelligible 2dly Several Psalms have no Titles at all and that 's an Argument they are not additional Conjectures for the same Hands might have given Conjectural Titles to all as well as to some Psalms at least such Titles as refer to the Pen-Man or to the Instruments of Musick on which they were sung c. but such Psalms as the Jews found without Titles in their Hebrew Bibles they left without and they remain so to this day a sign the Titles are not Conjectures of Men but the Dictates of the Holy Ghost It had been an easy thing for bold Conjecturers to have added some sort of Titles to such as are without and had the Wit of Man the ordering of the Matter it wou'd have render'd 'em more uniform and given 'em the same features and wou'd not have bestow'd Titles upon some and left others without 3dly It wou'd have look'd more modest in the Rector to have said we understand not the Use of many Titles than boldly if not blasphemously to affirm that many are to no Purpose at all There are many obscure Passages in the Holy Scriptures which we understand not are they therefore to no Purpose at all Must they be expung'd out of the sacred Oracles It 's well if the Prophecies of Ezechiel and John the Divine fall not under the Censure of this Corrupting expunger for being abstruse and obscure It 's no wonder that a Man who dares thus reproach the Spirit of God the Author of the Titles of the Psalms shou'd make no Conscience of reviling his Brethren We know who said to what Purpose is this waste I doubt it is to little Purpose to Reason with one who is not afraid to Charge the Spirit of God with Impertinencies It will prove but a sorry Excuse to say he does not take the Titles of the Psalms for Parts of Scripture he aggravates his Sin by excluding 'em first out of the Canon and when he has done by exposing 'em to Scorn and Contempt In like manner do the Deists treat other Parts of Holy Writ which they think they may safely Ridicule because they don't believe 'em divinely inspired CHAP. II. Containing an Answer to his Objections against the Titles of the Psalms HAVING vindicated my Arguments for the Titles I shall now consider the Rector's Objections against them 1st His first is this If some or any one Title may be justly question'd then this renders all the rest Suspicious and here he Questions the Titles of the 90 and 34 Psalms how justly we shall consider presently p. 11. But suppose one or two might be justly suspected to be a Humane Additon must all the rest be so The Rector thinks he may justly Question some Things in the Genealogies and Chronology of the Old Testament of our English Bibles does it follow therefore that all our Scripture-Genealogies and Chronology are suspicious It must be so according to the Rector's Logic Thus by attempting to overthrow one Part of Scripture he levels his Argument in effect against the whole He tells us in p. 13. That the Book of Psalms has receiv'd some Humane Additions especially at the end of Psalm 72. Here he puts an Argument into the Mouth of an Athiest that if some or any one Part of the Scripture may be justly question'd as suppose the Words at the end of Psalm 72. which he saith are manifestly False then this renders all the rest Suspicious How wou'd the Rector Answer his own Argument He must grant the Consequence of the Major Proposition That if some part may be justly question'd the whole is suspicious for it is his own Argument against the Titles of the Psalms He argues absurdly enough à parte ad totum He cannot deny the Minor for he affirms that some part of Scripture may be justly question'd as the Titles of Psalm 90. and 34. and the last verse of Psalm 72. He must therefore either acknowledge the weakness of his Premisses or deny the Conclusion or yield unto an Athiest that all the Scriptures are suspicious He can't deny the Conclusion without exposing the Reputation of a Scholar nor can he yield it in consistency with that of a Christian Therefore he must confess the weakness of his Argument that if one Title be questionable all the rest are suspicious The Rector here treats the Psalms with the same Justice which he has given the Dissenters he condemns them all for the supposed Act of One as in the Story of the Cameronian and he condemns all the Titles for the sake of one or two which he thinks fit to Question as follows The Title of the 90. Psalm A Prayer of Moses c. seems not to have been Composed by Moses for the Age of Man in v. 10. is said to be between Seventy and Eighty Years now the Life of Man in Moses's Time was much longer as appears by the Age of Job Kohath Amram Aaron Joshua Miriam Moses c. p. 11 12. He is sensible of the weakness of his own Argument and therefore adds It must be Confess'd That this Point is bandy'd by learned Men and sundry Answers are offer'd to the Arguments produced which I will not trouble the Reader with It wou'd have been more honest in him not to have troubled his Reader with this Argument which he calls Arguments produced out of Pool's Synopsis where he cou'd not but find the Answers of the Learned